{"id":4042,"date":"2021-07-08T09:55:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-08T14:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.vanshnookenraggen.com\/_index\/?p=4042"},"modified":"2021-07-08T12:53:23","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T17:53:23","slug":"queenslink","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vanshnookenraggen.com\/_index\/2021\/07\/queenslink\/","title":{"rendered":"Introducing the QueensLink"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a>
The QueensLink in relation to the NYC subway network.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Those who follows me on Twitter (where I am far more active than on this blog, unfortunately) might be aware that I have been talking about a project called QueensLink for some time. Since 2017 I\u2019ve been working with QueensRail, a 501c3 not-for-profit which has advocated restoring service on the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch in central Queens. While our website<\/a> has been live since 2019, I hadn’t mentioned the project on this blog until now.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The QueensLink is a new take on an old idea. Out in central Queens lies the remnants of the abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch<\/a>. The southern section of the line was added to the subway network in 1956 as an extension of the A train but the northern section, 3.5 miles of above ground tracks, was left abandoned as there was no viable way to link it up with the subway. Many studies over the years have looked at ways to reactivate the line, most notably as an express connection to JFK Airport. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Artists rendering of proposed Queensway<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In 2015 a park advocacy group came up with their own plan for the line: The Queensway<\/a>. The Queensway was modeled on the High Line in Manhattan. They assumed that the line could never be restored to passenger service and that it should be rebuilt as a park. Locals were cool to the idea and even now funding for the idea has remained elusive. The biggest problem with the Queensway proposal is that it assumes that rail is impossible. QueensRail reached out to the Friends of the Queensway early on to find a way to work together but they were very much opposed. The Queensway park isn’t a neutral actor but is very much designed to block any future use of the line for transit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
QueesnLink rendering showing only restored rail service on the line.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

QueensRail, on the other hand, has been advocating for much longer to restore passenger rail service. The problem was that with a park alternative there seemed to be two competing ideas. At the time, in 2016, both sides seemed to think that only one option was viable. While reading about the conflict I realized that many transit projects throughout the world integrate parks and transit; Why should this be any different? I wrote a post<\/a> on the idea that the solution seemed to be that both rail and parks could co-exist. A few months later Rick Horan, the president of QueensRail, reached out to me to see if I would be interested in developing the idea further.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/vanshnookenraggen\/41311467934\/in\/dateposted-public\/\n<\/div>
Typical view along the Rockaway Beach Branch.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

After looking over what QueensRail had already produced and taking a tour of the line I realized that the project was more realistic than I had even imagined. The right-of-way was quite large in parts and with creative use of the embankment we could incorporate a variety of park uses. I felt that in order for us to restart the conversation that we needed to rebrand. “Rail” was decisive in some parts as people could look at the elevated J train and imagine something like that in their backyards. We needed a name which changed the conversation from something potentially bad to something more ambiguously good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The name QueensLink was chosen because the value of restoring rail isn’t just for better transportation but the fact that this line could literally link together the city. Queens is a divided borough; all rail lines lead to Manhattan. If one wishes to get around Queens without a car it can be a very long and arduous journey on multiple bus routes. The Rockaway Beach Branch literally cuts a line north-south through the heart of the borough and connects each east-west subway line in the process. The addition of local parks along the route further helps to cement neighborhood cohesion. Thus, we can link Queens together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Concept<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The QueensLink is a proposal to build a new transit line and park system along the abandoned section of the former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch line which runs north-south from Rego Park to Ozone Park in Queens. The 3.5 mile-long line parallels Woodhaven Blvd and was built along an elevated, earthen embankment. By connecting the line to the Queens Blvd subway line and extending it south to connect to the A train at Howard Beach we can create the first north-south transit connection in Queens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the northern section, much of the right-of-way is very wide but currently overgrown. QueensLink proposes to reimagine this space along the tracks for parks or a bike\/pedestrian path. This can be done in a variety of ways (each with different price tags). The first is to simply activate the existing land around the embankment with walking or bike paths. The second would be to remove the embankment and replace it with an elevated viaduct, similar to the JFK AirTrain, and use the space below the viaduct for park use. The third would be to remove the embankment and replace it with a shallow tunnel (this would be much cheaper to build than using a tunnel boring machine like under 2nd Ave). The space above the tunnel would then be used for parks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
QueensLink cross-section at Yellowstone Blvd. The wide embankment could be rebuilt in various ways to accommodate new park space.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In the south, where the line runs on a wide viaduct, QueensLink proposes to utilize the space below the tracks (currently home to garages and auto body shops) for new parks or community spaces. Similar to the northern section, the existing viaduct could be saved with the spaces used for community purposes. Alternatively, the existing viaduct could be replaced with a smaller guideway, opening up the land below for park use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
QueensLink cross-section at 101st Ave. The wide embankment could be rebuilt in various ways to accommodate new park space.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Service on the QueensLink would be provided by an extension of the M train from the Queens Blvd subway. (The alternative is a connection to the LIRR Main Line.) The M train is preferred because it would provide a much higher frequency of service and provide connections to the other subway lines in Queens. The M train would reduce travel time from Howard Beach to 42nd<\/sup> St from over an hour (today) to 45 min. The LIRR alternative would have a travel time of 25 min but have less frequent service and offer fewer connections to the region’s transit network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previous studies made about restoring service on the Rockaway Beach Branch looked at a variety of different modes. In addition to a subway line and LIRR service, other ideas were to run light rail on the line, bus rapid transit, and even the AirTrain itself. The official MTA report discarded the light rail, bus rapid transit and AirTrain alternatives as they would not provide a one-seat-ride to midtown Manhattan (or in the case of the AirTrain, it was a different agency.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A hybrid plan of running either LIRR service over the A train section to Rockaway OR subway service along the LIRR Main Line has been brought up as technically feasible, but mixing these services would create cross agency complications and limit overall capacity. The subway alternative was chosen because it was the most simple and provides the highest frequency of service for a one-seat-ride through Queens and into Manhattan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By extending the M train the QueensLink would connect each of the major east-west subways together. Riders could have a simple one or two seat-ride to anywhere the subway goes to. It may also be possible to connect to the LIRR via restored passenger service on the LIRR Lower Montauk Line or a reopened Woodhaven station on the LIRR Atlantic Branch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Conceptual schematic for QueensLink service. Based on the Eric Chase design, Transbay Blog<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Extending the M train would also allow for greater capacity on the Queens Blvd subway line. Local trains are limited by the poor terminal design at Forest Hills-71 Ave. By rerouting the 8-10 trains per hour to Rockaway these slots are now available for the return of the G train. With the new CBTC signal system the local tracks would be able to run all existing G, M and R trains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are also proposing expanding the Woodhaven Blvd station on the Queens Blvd line from local to express. This would allow Rockaway riders to transfer, speeding up their trips even more, and reduce delays at Roosevelt Ave station further down. Roosevelt Ave sees delays due to riders switching from local to express. But if these riders could get the express at Woodhaven Blvd instead then trains could load more quickly at Roosevelt, improving service on express trains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This connection would revolutionize how people can get around Queens and even the rest of New York City. The current hub-and-spoke design of the NYC subway is great if you are commuting into Manhattan. But in a post-Covid world where people have more options of where they can work this design no longer works. An inter-connected network allows riders multiple ways of getting around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The QueensLink would allow riders who are going to midtown to avoid first having to travel through downtown Brooklyn and lower Manhattan. This will free up space on trains there, most notably the A and C trains. Travelers needing to reach JFK Airport will now have a quicker ride to Howard Beach, freeing up space on the packed E trains to Jamaica.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This new service will also dramatically reduce wait times for riders of the Rockaway Lines. Faster, more reliable service will encourage more people to ride the subway rather than drive and the new connections will allow for more areas of the city to be reached without a car. Reducing car dependency will be key for a more sustainable future. Fewer cars mean less air pollution and less runoff that poisons Jamaica Bay. Fewer cars on Woodhaven Blvd and Queens Blvd makes these roads safer for all users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rails and Trails<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A soccer field below the MARTA train in Atlanta, GA.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

QueensLink was created out of a need to find the best possible use for such an important assent like the Rockaway Beach Branch. Previously there were two competing visions for the land: restored rail service or conversion to a High Line-style park. Past rail proposals often only focused on express service to JFK Airport, bypassing local communities which would have benefited from the service. The park proposal, dubbed Queensway, was a lavishly designed fantasy which would have completely taken over the entire right-of-way, leaving no possible way that trains could ever run on the line again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While New Yorkers often celebrate how diverse this city is, they are often guilty of being myopic and assuming that if we can\u2019t do something here then it can\u2019t be done. Everywhere else around the nation and globe new rail lines are built with park incorporated. The same can easily be done here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right-of-way on the northern section, from 63rd<\/sup> Dr to the Lower Montauk rail line, varies in width but is often over 100\u2019 wide. The southern section is much narrower, but there are still options. Should the embankment and viaduct be rebuilt as a modern guideway then the space below could be used as a bike\/pedestrian path. In Ozone Park, the viaduct takes up the entire block between 99th<\/sup> and 100th<\/sup> streets. This, too, can be opened up with a new viaduct or have the existing structure be converted into a market or community space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Google Earth map showing potential park locations along the QueensLink (dark green).<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The former turnout at Atlantic Ave, where LIRR trains once switched to go to Brooklyn, could be repurposed as park land as well. Currently, it is home to a parking lot for the Logan Bus company. The bus company has a month-to-month lease with the city which will have to work with them to find a replacement location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central section runs through Forest Park and the land has been converted to NYC Parks property. This means that if the land were to be converted back to transit use these 9 or so acres would need to be replaced. Luckily, the potential park space that could be created by QueensLink is about 33 acres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
View from Yellowstone Blvd showing potential park space below a new elevated viaduct.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The MTA Study<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2013 the MTA had been tasked with creating a study looking at the feasibility of restoring service on the Rockaway Beach Branch. Then Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder secured funding for the study. The MTA kept pushing back the release of their feasibility study until 2019 when it was discovered that the report had been finished a year prior but had not been released. With some cajoling the MTA dropped the study<\/a> on a Friday afternoon in October 2019. The front page of the study showed a date of September 2018. They had indeed tried to bury the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study, overall, was quite positive. It looked at two possibilities: restoring LIRR service from the Main Line (at Whitepot Junction) to Howard Beach or connecting it to the subway at 63rd<\/sup> Dr and extending service south to the Rockaways (there are two branches of the subway in the Rockaways, one is served full time by the A train and the other is served full time by a shuttle to Broad Channel with a few A trains at rush hour. The report did not discuss where this new subway service would run.) The report even indicated that some of the right-of-way could be reused for park space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then came the kicker: The Rockaway Beach Branch rail line is built on an elevated embankment which, except for a couple bridges, is completely intact. The report found that the LIRR option would cost $6.7 billion and the subway option $8.1 billion. Even in a city that is home to the three most expensive subway project of all time this was an outrageous price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any media that picked up the story never got past the sticker shock. We had a feeling this was done on purpose. The MTA dragged their feet on starting the report and then tried to hide it. The cost estimate was suspect. We began to sort through the budget which was included in the report and started to find large amounts which made no sense. Through the office of Assemblywoman Stacey Pheffer-Amato of Rockaway we asked the MTA to comment, and they politely declined (or, rather, they said that was the cost because they said so.) We tried to get more information from them through a Freedom of Information Act request. Just this May, 2021, after a number of attempts and appeals, did we finally get the document we requested, 99% redacted. All it showed was that their consulting firm, SYSTRA, was paid over $800,000 for their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We decided to fight fire with fire and develop our own counter-report that could prove these numbers were wrong. By utilizing a series of discretionary grants from city council members we were able to hire a consulting firm, Transportation Economics and Management, Inc (TEMS<\/a>) headed by Alexander Metcalf, to review the MTA\u2019s work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before we delve into the report, a note. This is NOT a full environmental impact statement which would look at possible alternatives, estimate ridership, and develop funding strategies. A report of that scope will cost about $250,000. QueensRail had a fraction of that. What we needed at this point were two things: a professional reappraisal of the official MTA cost estimate and an idea of what kind of economic impact such an investment would have on Queens. No politician would touch this project if they seriously though it would cost $8.1 billion. If it were to cost much less than we\u2019d have to figure out a way to pay for it which is where the potential economic development comes in. We intend to use this report to begin fundraising efforts in support of the full study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

QueensLink Report<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full report can be found here.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With our report we needed to show two things: first, the the official MTA cost estimate is wrong (and how it’s wrong) and, second, that such an investment would lead to economic growth that would justify the costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The official cost estimate from the MTA report is that a subway extension would cost $8.1 billion. We found that this estimate can be broken into two sections: construction costs and “soft” costs which comprise professional services (payments to contractors and whatnot), contingency costs (for the inevitable cost overruns) and Year of Expenditure Escalation (which factors inflation into the cost). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By breaking down these costs we found that the construction costs would come in at about $1.8 billion and the soft costs would, amazingly, make up $6.3 billion. TEMS looked at the numbers and found that SYSTRA, the firm contracted by the MTA to produce their Rockaway Branch study, used formulas that are out of line with industry standards. They used costs based not on “present” dollars but on 2030 dollars with inflation already factored in (as opposed to just what inflation would cost) and they added completely unrealistic contingency costs for no explainable reason. They also gave themselves an inflated professional services fee as a cherry on top.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of these costs are broken down in the report but are also available as part of the MTA’s Rockaway Beach Branch Study, Appendix H<\/a>. [PDF]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Using formulas recommended by the FTA itself then we find that the soft costs come down substantially. The actual construction costs seem to be in line with other US transit projects. These costs will inevitable change as the project is developed and actual designs are finalized (especially once the park space is developed.) But with normal soft costs we find that the project would come in between $3.4 and $3.7 billion<\/strong>. This cost difference is based on whether or not the existing bridges need to be replaced. The MTA study suggests they do, but an independent engineer for the Queensway suggested otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report then outlines the benefits of such an investment. By comparing the project of similar builds, most notably the Purple Line outside of Washington, D.C. (which is still under construction) and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail in New Jersey, that over the course of the project’s lifetime it could:<\/p>\n\n\n\n